A reading list i got off /pol/

Muh Autistic Austrian Artist Muh totally not fake "Protocols of Zion"Muh FordMore Autistic Austrian shitMuh Not-Socialist UtopiaDont know much about this oneDont know much about this on eitherMuh rockwell and wyatt powa "Feels>Reals LMAO"Dont know what this one is

Brief summary of Culture of Critique: cherry-picks evidence, makes causal connections where there are none, and outright refuses to engage with competing theories.tl;dr it's modern phrenology and has been widely debunked

Also Imperium is mostly larp shit, and Plato is really just an entry-level political science text that needs a good understanding of the conditions of ancient Greece to properly interpret the book. I would actually recommend Plato since most theories and western thinking on political power are influenced by him. Everything else belongs in the bin

alt-right suggested reading list: half a dozen glorified pamphlets and an intro to the greeks.<lefty suggested reading list: spans multiple locked threadshonestly being a right winger would be so fucking easy

Not that user but I took a look at the section on the Frankfurt school. Macdonald mostly uses secondary text in interpreting their works and seriously misunderstands the anti-positivism of Adorno and Horkheimer and its place in the German tradition, instead trying to link it back to something adopted to pursue Jew group interest as one example.

Macdonald is on NO place to be engaging with the Frankfurt school. Most of the section is on the Authoritarian Personality which I haven't read, but if the other parts are any precedent he most likely skewers that too. Other historians have criticized his use of their works in the section on communism saying he cherry picked and mashed up quotes etc.

There's a reason Adorno said that right wing mysticism was "metaphysics for dunces".

They have Hoebbes and Locke. 1984 and Brave New World. Lord of the Rings, and Beowulf. Is it just me or has anyone else read or at last seen references to most of the reading on this list in High School.

actually just read Lightening and the Sun and god that book is fucking horrible. Pretty much calls for a theological exterminatus led by Kalki that would leave only the truly divine aryan alive, walking the earth as demigods. Very confused Heideggerian shit fucked together with Hitler worship and Hindu caste theology. Awful read and shows just how depraved and death worshiping fascism can become.

2354461 Deleuze and Guatarri's theories regarding coding, territory, and rhizomes is the theory expanded upon and granted greater complexity and nuance. More about it can be found in their two volume work Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Likewise, the works of Mao, Stalin, Marx, Engels, Il-Sung, and any other significant marxist leninist thinker contributes and expands upon the socialist science of development through contradiction and histories.

Orwell explicitly calls for a revolution of the proletariat in the book, and the Goldstein's book section is where he stops bothering with story and just dumps an essay about how capitalism is to blame for everything. He didn't claim to be a socialist for nothing.By the way, did you know that 1984 is the book that Brits lie the most about having read? :^) I bet that most people who criticise the book never get past the first few chapters.

The premise of the book being that Jews ruined America's traditional culture by being overly critical of it or some shit?The only way that could be believable is if Henry Ford and Joe McCarthy were Jews, but they aren’y. Seriously those two Pokies are who ruined American Culture.

The Fiction Section<Tolkien and HuxleyDont quote me but iirc They were low key quite reactionary and it seeped into their stories so i get how /pol/ would like it i guess<Orwell/pol/ using a book written by a Trot turned Anarchist Which literally parodies Nat-Soc and Naz-BolLmao<Clockwork OrangeI dont get thisI would think a book thats main motif comes off as "Muh Degenerates and scum of the earth cant be cured" and has a strong Anti-Authoritarian message would be Antithetical to /pol/s beliefs that society can be fixed with absolute Social-Engineering

Only a pleb-tier reading of Tolkien would allow you to draw any sort of reactionary message from it. It really is its own self-contained universe. I guess it speaks to how idealist your average /pol/tard is though. They believe that we literally live in some kind of fantasy world and that their political opponents are part of a great host that is controlled by an evil entity/organization which wants to destroy them and their race for reasons which are never explained.

Yukio Mishima's Confessions of a Mask… Uh? Of all the Mishima novels, some of which openly glorify nationalism and militarism like Patriotism or Runaway Horses, they chose to go with the one in which he mostly explore his homosexuality?

Dunno if you would count this but most adaptations of A Christmas Carol mock the source material to a greater or lesser extent

The film adaptation of Fight Club essentially has a reversed moral compared to the original (the titular fight club is cool vs the fight club is a terrifying glimpse into the psyche of the disenfranchised male), however this is probably more due to Hollywood ineptness than deliberate satire

The DC superhero movies can be said to be a purposeful shitting on the original source material, essentially saying the superhero mythos is a childish fantasy (which it is, but what they did with it was no better)

The short film version of Harrison Bergeron completely misses the point of the original by taking it as a criticism of socialism rather than a mocking parody of anti-communism

The film adaptation of Children of Men is a love letter to 'liberal values' and directly mocks religious fanatics who think the sterilisation of mankind is a spiritual punishment, while the original novel is a work that lionises Christianity, with the inability to bear children being an obvious parallel for the Virgin Mary and baby Jesus.

Try actually reading the book. The Federation described in the book is simply a capitalist republic with limited voting franchise. Advocating for a limited franchise is not fascism, nor is exploring personal sacrifice and development in anyway fascistic.

The movie is not a satirization of the book. It is a silly, enjoyable action movie that originally had nothing to do with Starship Troopers.It was not until a producer noticed some loose similarities between the original script and the book (a unified earth fighting giant space bugs), that it was renamed 'Starship Troopers' and some very basic elements of the book (names and a few pieces of dialogue) were worked in.The two minute scene at the beginning of the movie with its poor stand-in for Lt. Col. Dubois is literally the most the film has to do with the book - Even then it is heavily truncated and not even the actual focus of the scene.

Hell, not only did Verhoeven openly admit to never reading past the first chapter of the book. But all of the elements in the film incorrectly regarded as 'satire' of the book by brainlets are actually just Verhoeven satirising WW2 era propaganda; Nothing like that ever appeared in the book to satirise in the first place.

That alone doesn't make it fascism but I would consider it one of the key 'traits' towards identifying a fascist system - that all power lays in the hands of the military. It doesn't nessecitate fascism but I would consider it 'fascistic'. Perhaps I'm being a little pedantic but I would call it a huge red flag.

most likely its because of its very sexual fetishization of male death, as the only moment in which a man is allowed to beautiful, along with its length discussions about (a) being a weak effeminate loser in high school (b) being a weeb for neo classical and classical art (c) living a miserable adult life in which all you do is masturbate to porn you don't even like but you do it only to convince yourself you ain't gay. All these are common features in a fascist.

Try reading the book, anarcho-kiddie. Franchise is not limited to the military.It is limited to anyone that has completed a term of national service, of which military service is just one option.

Power does not 'lay in the hands of the military', the book clearly states that you cannot even vote or hold political office if you are currently in the military of the Federation. I get that reading is scary for anarcho-kiddies, but please actually read the book before attempting to criticise it.You are only embarrassing yourself.

It is not. Verhoeven literally did not read past the first chapter of the book. He did not have any idea of what the Federations government was like, beyond some cliff notes that a friend gave to him.You cannot show 'what a government would lead to', when you have no idea what that government is in the first place.

It is limited to anyone that has completed a term of national service, of which military service is just one option.

Yeah and it's vague as fuck about what this actually means, since there are plenty of young people who throw themselves into the meat grinder for citizenship it can't be quite as easy as just picking up litter or something.

And no, I haven't read the actual book, but I know enough about it to say that your view is entirely wrong headed. As the other user says the book doesn't call itself fascist but the system described is at the very least at extreme risk of devolving into it. Plus, just cause someone isn't active military doesn't mean they've left the military behind them mentally, just ask John McCain, he's never seen a war he didn't like, and plenty of coups/coup attempts have been led by former generals and so on.

"It is limited to anyone that has completed a term of national service, of which military service is just one option."you must, of necesity, at some point devote a large portion of your life to the state and it's ideology or be openly disenfranchised oh and also dissenting thought is considered anathema and punishable but we're totally not fascistic or bayud mkay

"Power does not 'lay in the hands of the military'"uuuuuuuuh if you're fighting right this second you can't be elected. Please ignore the fact that the state is entirely composed of ex military goons

"You cannot show 'what a government would lead to'"Organizing your government around the Roman model of citizenship and lionizing your military to the highest rank in the social hierarchy won't, by definition, lead to fascism, like that exact policy did in every nation that implemented it, Rome includedI don't believe you.

Yeah and it's vague as fuck about what this actually meansNo it is fucking not, asshole. The book spends several paragraphs going into detail over other options for federal service besides military service. You could be a fucking invalid and the federation would find something for you to do, as trying to complete a term of federal service was a constitutionally guaranteed right for everyone in the Federation. Don't try and talk like an authority on something when at best you may have skimmed a Wikipedia article.

there are plenty of young people who throw themselves into the meat grinder for citizenship it can't be quite as easy as just picking up litter or somethingFirstly, federal service is explicitly not a 'meat grinder', the movie is not at all reflective of the book. In the book things are unusually hard for Rico because he insisted on joining the military as his federal service and the only positions he qualified for was MI grunt or psy-dog keeper.

Secondly, counting pencils was an example given in the book as a possible federal service.It is all dependant upon your abilities. So there would indeed be people picking up litter for their service.

And no, I haven't read the actual bookColor me surprised.If you have not read it, then you are in no position to criticise it.

I know enough about it to say that your view is entirely wrong headedOh yes. I do really care about what some anarcho-kiddie thinks about my views. Please do skim over the Wikipedia article for Utilitarianism so that you can attempt to criticise my position on that in the most embarrassing way possible next.

the system described is at the very least at extreme risk of devolving into itBut you don't even know what the system described in the book is. You only consider at 'at risk of devolving into fascism' because it not whatever assuredly shit system you want.Trying to criticise something that you don't even understand does not fly outside of anarchist circles.

Plus, just cause someone isn't active military doesn't mean they've left the military behind them mentallyOne would hope so.

Besides, you said that the power was in the hands of the military in the Federation.That is literally not true.

you must, of necesity, at some point devote a large portion of your life to the state Firstly, federal service is entirely optional. You can still live a comfortable, happy life without ever doing it.

Secondly, one would be so lucky to serve something greater then themself. While the Federation is certainly far from ideal, service to a state is an inherently noble concept. It is the disgusting egoism of many on the left that is the true evil, the real danger.

dissenting thought is considered anathema and punishableDissenting thought within reason is literally not punishable.Why the fuck do you think that the Moral Philosophy classes were not graded? You can think what you want in the federation, just expect a citizen to give your stupid ideas all of the respect they deserve.

if you're fighting right this second you can't be electedBeing in active service and fighting are not synonyms you fucking retard.

Please ignore the fact that the state is entirely composed of ex military goonsThe state is comprised of citizens. Only a percentage of which would be ex-millitary, please actually read the book.

Those that were ex-millitary were certainly not 'goons' however.Indeed by virtue of completing their time in federal service, even the worst of them would be better then your ilk.

federal service is entirely optional. <just live as a disenfranchised, second class citizen, nothing wrong with that

one would be so lucky to serve something greater then themselfservice to a state is an inherently noble concept. Please, continue to spew fascist rhetoric, it makes me look better.

It is the disgusting egoism of many on the left that is the true evil, the real danger.I'm a Marxist Leninist and I'm not even this much of a fucking parody. All humans act intrinsically in what they perceive to be in their interest, all voluntary action is fundamentally egoistic as an extension of the ego, even in the abnegation of self the ego is served.

Dissenting thought within reasonW I TH I N R E A S O NGestapo dindunuffin, the jews were simply not reasonably going to the camps as instructed, surely you can recognize their follishness, fellow citizen

Here's the sticky, booboo, fascist thought was based on a perception of the Roman empire, so is the federation (fascist nations also implemented the exact policies you want for the exact reasons), stop peddling your creepy authoritarian wank fest and read some non fiction ya damn turbo virgin.

just live as a disenfranchised, second class citizenYou are more then capable of living a comfortable life without being a citizen. Hell, Rico's father was a very wealthy business man and a civilian.

They are disenfranchised, sure. But if franchise was something that they actually gave a damn about to begin with then they would have done their term of federal service.

Please, continue to spew fascist rhetoric I have literally said nothing that qualifies as 'fascist rhetoric' by any sane measure.Believe or not but concepts that some variety of fascism may have explored in the past are not forever tainted by fascism.

Political group uniforms, class based rhetoric, protectionism etc are all things that fascist groups of the past have explored, yet none of them are inherently fascist. Likewise the rightful glorification of service to the state is not inherently fascist.

I'm a Marxist Leninist Really? Because you are acting like an Anarchist, or perhaps a Maoist.

All humans act intrinsically in what they perceive to be in their interestSure. But people seldom know what is actually in their best interests. That is why Neo-liberalism is such a popular ideology.

Gestapo dindunuffin, the jews were simply not reasonably going to the camps as instructedIf you have to resort to tired attempts to link my ideas to the fucking nazis, then you clearly have no interest in constructive argumentation.

tbh the "something greater than oneself" is a good ideal.i know with the flag i'm walking RIGHT into it, but it's genuinely a good thing to have some kind of higher societal purpose - I mean, the USSR had "building communism" and the west had the vague idea of scientific progress during the space race. Even if you aren't personally doing much more than giving out parking tickets, it's useful to have people feel they're part of that.

All humans act intrinsically in what they perceive to be in their interest, all voluntary action is fundamentally egoistic as an extension of the ego, even in the abnegation of self the ego is served. There are three ways of reading this. One of them makes "their interest" meaningless, one of them contains a tiny internal conflict between perceived interest, and what the ego wants, and one of them makes humans such monstrous creatures that fascists would be heroes for killing en-masse in war.Then there's a secondary consideration: Perceive to be their interest. Manipulating perception is so easy even dogs try it.

if franchise was something that they actually gave a damn about to begin with then they would have done their term of federal service.And if you don't agree with the government your only recourse should be complete overthrow? If you think a system in which only those who already agree are allowed input can work you're fucking retarded.

I have literally said nothing that qualifies as 'fascist rhetoric' by any sane measure.Hol' upfrom an earlier commentthe Federation described in the book is simply a capitalist republic with limited voting franchise. This is literally what fascism is, a capitalist state that has decayed into militarism, xenophobia and complete intellectual hegemony with an elite class who control the state, usually tied to the militaryone would be so lucky to serve something greater then themself. This is a line pulled by Richard Spencer, recently and every fascistic ideologue at one point in time.The state is comprised of citizens.The elite class by virtue of completing their time in federal service, even the worst of them would be better then your ilk.Case and point, does their dick taste good? You have the predilections of a rabid homosexual.

concepts that some variety of fascism may have explored in the past are not forever tainted by fascism. <The core tennets of fascist thought are not inherently fascistYes they are.

people seldom know what is actually in their best interests. Added, retroactively to the list of fascistic rhetoric, you don't know what people want, move out of your mom's basement, larper.

If you have to resort to tired attempts to link my ideas to the fucking nazis, then you clearly have no interest in constructive argumentation.<Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh pointing out that I'm literally paraphrasing Hitler is fallacious because a meme on the internet said so!!!!!!!!!!!!

P.SUtilitarianismDo you plan on using the Federal resources to build a sensation machine?

it's genuinely a good thing to have some kind of higher societal purposeThis is very different than something bigger than one's self, the ideal of building communism within the USSR is a common goal/ideal upheld by the workers therein, the Soviet government is an entity which is bigger than one's self, to blindly serve the latter rather than sharing the former in common is a great mistake. Communism is about individuals working in accord for their own interest (which, as workers, is the same, which creates the illusion of "greater good) not in the service of an elite class.

As far as interest goes, logically, only the individual person can know what's in their own interest, as they contain the subjective data of experience and the potential to learn the objective data of external observation tho synthesis a sort of "true" self interest, the aim of the left should be providing the tools to really understand one's own interest, I.E, Marxist historical analysis, economic theory, etc.

I'm kind of annoyed that the only right wing sources you find on the French Revolution are written by either Liberal-Conservative or Tory Anglos.I heard that Frenchies don't like translating their stuff for us dumb third thirdworlders but this is just bullshit. I want to read about the freemason-jewish conspiracy and about the wronged moral and pious royals and the maddened blood thirsty satanist revolutionaires, not about the lack of personal freedoms and the decadent aristocracy.

I'd like to know how many of those books the people who made the images have actually read.My estimate is sub-10% read, with sub-50% "I skimread the wikiquotes" and ~80% "I at least looked at it on Wikipedia/Amazon to get the gist of it and find a photo of the cover."

In the year 2081, the 211th, 212th, and 213th amendments to the Constitution dictate that all Americans are fully equal and not allowed to be smarter, better-looking, or more physically able than anyone else. The Handicapper General's agents enforce the equality laws, forcing citizens to wear "handicaps": masks for those who are too beautiful, loud radios that disrupt thoughts inside the ears of intelligent people, and heavy weights for the strong or athletic.

One April, 14-year-old Harrison Bergeron, an intelligent and athletic teenager, is taken away from his parents, George and Hazel Bergeron, by the government. They are barely aware of the tragedy, as Hazel has "average" intelligence (a euphemism for stupidity), and George has a handicap radio installed by the government to regulate his above-average intelligence.

Hazel and George watch ballet on television. They comment on the dancers, who are weighed down to counteract their gracefulness and masked to hide their attractiveness. George's thoughts are continually interrupted by the different noises emitted by his handicap radio, which piques Hazel's curiosity and imagination regarding handicaps. Noticing his exhaustion, Hazel urges George to lie down and rest his "handicap bag", 47 pounds (21 kg) of weights locked around George's neck. She suggests taking a few of the weights out of the bag, but George resists, aware of the illegality of such an action.

On television, a news reporter struggles to read the bulletin and hands it to the ballerina wearing the most grotesque mask and heaviest weights. She begins reading in her unacceptably natural, beautiful voice, then apologizes before switching to a more unpleasant voice. Harrison's escape from prison is announced, and a full-body photograph of Harrison is shown, indicating that he is seven feet (2.1 m) tall and burdened by three hundred pounds (140 kg) of handicaps.

George recognizes his son for a moment, before having the thought eliminated by his radio. Harrison himself then storms the television studio in an attempt to overthrow the government. He calls himself the Emperor and rips off all of his handicaps, along with the handicaps of a ballerina, whom he proclaims his "Empress". He orders the musicians to play, promising them royalty if they do their best. Unhappy with their initial attempt, Harrison takes control for a short while, and the music improves. After listening and being moved by the music, Harrison and his Empress dance while flying to the ceiling, then pause in mid-air to kiss.

Diana Moon Glampers, the Handicapper General, enters the studio and kills Harrison and the Empress with a ten-gauge double-barreled shotgun. She forces the musicians to put on their handicaps, and the television goes dark. George, unaware of the televised incident, returns from the kitchen and asks Hazel why she was crying, to which she replies that something sad happened on television that she cannot remember. He comforts her and they return to their average lives.

The Bookchin list is fine if you really dig communalism. I'd toss in some Kaczynski for good measure.

Third image would be a decent book-path for a course on understanding the fundamentals communist economics with a decent amount of historical context. Not awful. Could benefit from adding the BREAD book and Bakunin.

Fourth list is just throwing everything against the wall in no real order.

my sides have been shagged backwards m8<Divine ScriptureshahahahahahahaGood thing they clarified it, or I might mistake it for those other Christian divine scriptures.

That ain't half bad. Except for the nonficiton, but that's true for any rightwing reading list. I can't pretend to know a thing about "Saki" and other lesser figures, but The Camp of Saints sticks out like a sore thumb because it doesn't have even any literary value. It's what would happen if /pol/ had a "let's write a book one greentext at a time" thread. Also lyl at Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron.

Well, so was Marx.

Published on May 27, 2014Huh, that was surprising.

It's disturbing that a 1930s hippie's pessimistic view of an inevitable quasi-dystopia looks like paradise compared to what we're getting.

Advocating for a limited franchise is not fascism, nor is exploring personal sacrifice and development in anyway fascistic. user…

Nevermind the limited franchise being a horribly reactionary policy, the glorification of personal sacrifice may not be unique to fascism, but it's one of its most basic traits. It's the cult of heroism. Everyone is taught, and hopes, to become that one Great Man rising above the plebeian masses, which is an obvious contradiction.

Freikorps = socdem death squads. (allegedly.)I'm thinking of some unflattering adjectives, but "contrarian" isn't anywhere near among them.I was hoping someone would give a reply like this so I could articulate the justification for that (because I couldn't think of a way to do it unilaterally that didn't seem too off topic and ponderous.)It's basically a response to counteract the individualist approach we have today, where it's all about individuals, their talents, skills, etc, without enough appreciation of collective endeavour. The entrepreneur is our hero, rather than the workers he directs who do the actual work. If you want to vulgarize it to /pol/ levels, it's an instinct that says "I would prefer society became too collectivist because I'm sick of it being too individualist."

In terms of a hypothetical implementation to illustrate the instinct, it would be banning people from the fruits of collective efforts to drive home the fact that they aren't the isolated individual they think they are. (i.e. in an industrial dispute where a Randian superman is fighting the workers in his factory, it should be perfectly legitimate for workers in other unrelated sectors to shut off his electricity, his water, etc. At an extreme and perhaps over-spiteful level, perhaps even revoking police protection and if someone wants to break his jaw, well, John Galt should've defended himself rather than asking for handouts…) In other words in most circumstances "handicaps" could be imposed socially rather than on the individual level. You're very funny, but Thatcherite? We don't need to stop you from telling jokes - just don't expect to do it on council property, television or the internet… I'm sure your dinner guests will enjoy your wit!Remember, this is a hypothetical example rather than a proposal - but the gist of the thought ought to be that bad people should be subject to some form of unilateral revocation of the social contract until they learn their lesson. The world's best general is nothing without his soldiers, and if he forgets that his soldiers should shoot him. Though I do think there's a serious role in society for trade unions bullying the bourgeoisie.

That should hopefully pin down the spark. Less an opposition to individual talent (go Stakhanovites!), and more an opposition to individual egotism. The serious proposal is less that we actually go around encouraging gangsters to beat up Elon Musk, and more that we keep the instinct in mind in all areas of policy. (i.e. in the most distant sense, levying a wealth tax in a hypothetical society where all wealth is entrepreneurial, which will hit individuals to benefit the collective. Ideally if possible with some element of hitting the most insufferable individuals the hardest, though in real policy you must be subtle with this.)

Confirm your age

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.